population decline

on

Last year I reported precocious territorial behavior by one two-year-old in Wisconsin and another two-year-old in Minnesota. These sightings were extraordinary. Before 2023, we had no record of an adult loon younger than four years of age holding or attempting to hold a territory. Naturally we were excited to see whether those youngsters would return at age three and continue to show assertive territorial behavior well ahead of schedule.

We were not disappointed.* “Junior”, as I reported recently, is firmly ensconced on the Oneida-West territory in our Wisconsin Study Area. Meanwhile, the now three-year-old who seemed determined to settle on Pig Lake on the Whitefish Chain last July appears to have claimed the Ossawinnamakee-Boozer’s Bay territory…..and is nesting! This young Minnesota male** was hatched in 2021 by the Ossie-Muskie Bay pair. So he has settled only a few miles from the territory on which he was raised three years ago.

It is cool to see two loons in different states set the record for youngest territorial breeder simultaneously. This finding suggests that all adult-plumaged loons, even very young ones, are capable of breeding. The result also implies that many young adults would settle and breed if the habitat were not already occupied by older loons.

Could it be just a wild coincidence that two such unlikely settlements transpired at the same time? Yes, it could be. As someone whose job it is to look for patterns, though, I think I see the beginning of one here. We know from past work in Wisconsin that four, five, and six year-old adults are bigger, stronger, and more competitive for breeding territories than two and three year-olds. We know also that the pool of four to six-year olds looking for territories has become depleted by poor breeding success over the past decade. In other words, fewer chicks fledged has led to fewer young competitors scoping out territories to claim. The sudden settlement of two very young adults in Wisconsin and Minnesota suggests that territorial competition has softened to the point that two- and three-year-olds can now compete for and claim territories.

So the excitement of watching territory settlement by very young adults is tempered by the nagging concern that these events are further evidence of a downturn in the breeding population. But maybe I am overthinking it. For now, let’s savor the spectacle!***

* These cool findings are not mine. Hayden and Claudia, our scouts in Wisconsin and Minnesota, found and ID’d each of these adults on territory. Kudos to these two outstanding field workers, who have braved cold, damp conditions to ID returning breeders in both states!

** I initially called this bird a female on the basis of size. It seems I was wrong. Its settlement so near its natal territory makes the loon almost certain to be a male.

*** The featured photo above is by Claudia Kodsuntie, who scouted our study lakes in Minnesota. It pictures the hind 3/4 of the 3-year-old adult on Ossie-Boozer’s Bay. The photo is not beautiful. I like it, though. It shows the kind of quick underwater view of colored leg bands that one often gets during the early census period. So it gives you a good idea of the challenges that Claudia and Hayden have oversome to make this blog post possible.

on

At a March meeting of loon researchers in New Hampshire, John Cooley of the Loon Preservation Committee showed that the recent increase in severe rainstorms in the Northeast has made flooding of loon nests a routine cause of nest failure there. John’s report was eye-opening to me for two reasons. First, nest floodings occur seldom among Upper Midwest loons, so his result showed that environmental threats facing loon populations vary regionally. Second, and more important, John’s findings pushed me past a personal cognitive tipping point. I now see clearly that climate change, which has negatively impacted plants and animals worldwide, has not spared the common loon.*

I must admit that I was among those who hoped that loons might dodge climate change. I have long understood that hundreds of terrestrial birds are being adversely affected by changing patterns of temperature and rainfall. But loons are aquatic, I reasoned. Maybe they are different.

In fact, the list of climate-related factors known to harm loons is growing. In addition to the new flooding threat from storms that John’s talk revealed, the list includes black flies, which are getting worse owing to increasing annual rainfall. And our just-published paper shows yet a third problem that rainfall poses for breeding loons. In a nutshell, July rainfall reduces water clarity, which hinders loons’ efforts to capture fish to feed their chicks. This problem has led to a decline in chick mass and increase in chick mortality over the past 25 years in northern Wisconsin. If you are keeping score, we now know of two climate-related patterns that reduce hatching success of loon eggs and one that increases mortality of chicks after hatching. It is no wonder that loon reproductive success is falling across most of the breeding range, including its heart, in Canada.

These are not short-term patterns likely to reverse themselves in a year or two. Flooding, black flies, and water clarity have been getting worse for at least 25 years. No rational person who has seen these data and is capable of looking at the world with an objective eye can doubt that climate change is harming loon populations.

What now? Do we resign ourselves to loon population decline in the Upper Midwest? Do we accept the models that show the breeding range shrinking northwards until the species no longer breeds in the United States by 2050 or a bit later? Do we sit down with our children and grandchildren and explain to them that they will have to go to Canada to see the birds whose charismatic presence near our summer homes has so enriched our lives? I don’t think so. We cannot reverse climate change in a hurry. We cannot stop rain from falling. But continued field research might allow us to pinpoint climate-related hazards faced by loons — such as the precise identity of the material that rain is washing into lakes to reduce water clarity — and use that information to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. The current picture is disheartening, but we must do what we can to save loons.

___________________________

*Featured photo by Linda Grenzer on April 8. Loons, mostly males, have begun to trickle back to the Northwoods. Linda took this photo of the male that has bred for 12 years on Deer Lake in Lincoln County. But here he is exploring nearby Muskellunge Lake, to which the longtime male resident did not return in 2023. It will be interesting to see if he settles on Deer Lake, where he has experienced seven nest failures in a row, or moves over to Muskellunge, which has a very good track record of chick production.

on

A few years ago, a non-scientist collaborator of mine suggested that I place transmitters on loons. This was a cool idea in many respects. Transmitters would permit us to monitor loons’ locations in real time and share those data with the public on a splashy website. I agreed that the technique would be thrilling and draw lots of public interest. But when the surge of adrenaline subsided, I was left with two troubling questions. First, what scientific hypothesis could we test with transmitters? Second, how would attaching transmitters to loons help us conserve loon populations in the Upper Midwest?

I am not knocking the technique. Transmitters are a potent tool used by animal ecologists to learn about patterns of migration, dispersal, and nomadism. Kevin Kenow and his collaborators employed satellite transmitters to show that typical adult loons breeding in Wisconsin and Minnesota spend the fall on Lake Michigan before heading south for winter. Kevin’s team also learned that juveniles remain on or near their natal lakes until late November, at which time they make a beeline for their winter quarters. So transmitters have helped us pinpoint times and places that are crucial to the annual survival of Upper Midwest loons. At present, though, there is no burning question concerning loons that transmitters might address.

What questions are most pressing with respect to Upper Midwest loons? With another year behind us and the 2024 field season looming, let’s take stock. How healthy is the population of loons in the Upper Midwest? And how can we best use our resources to protect them?**

Population Surveys

Two broad censuses carried out by armies of volunteers look at loon populations across large swaths of Minnesota and Wisconsin during late July. These counts are prone to fluctuations caused by changes in personnel and weather conditions during a narrow window of data collection. Still, they provide valuable large-scale “snapshots” that, in the long run, tell us how each population is faring. Furthermore, by comparing Minnesota and Wisconsin snapshots side by side, we might discern a broader regional trend.

Wisconsin’s LoonWatch survey has been carried out every five years since 1976. The survey showed robust statewide gains in loon numbers during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. The most recent survey, however, revealed a decline in the Wisconsin loon population between 2015 and 2020. (The next survey will occur in July 2025.)

The Minnesota Loon Monitoring Program generates data annually and is based on six “index” areas. The enhanced geographic dimension to the MLMP survey suits Minnesota’s loon population, which is three times the size of Wisconsin’s. From 1994 to 2010, populations in two of six areas increased, two declined, and two were stable. But trends have shifted downwards in recent years. Since 2010, two areas have been stable, two have declined slightly, and two have fallen sharply. Surprisingly, the strongest, most consistent declines have occurred in the two most northerly areas (Cook/Lake and Itaska).

If we stitch Minnesota and Wisconsin surveys together, we can see that the Upper Midwest loon population as a whole increased (Wisconsin) or remained stable (Minnesota) during the 1990s and 2000s. We can also detect an apparent decline across the region that began in about 2010 in Minnesota and five years later in Wisconsin.

Poor Breeding Appears to Explain the Wisconsin Decline

Our breeding data from Wisconsin shed light on the recent population decline there. During the 1990s and 2000s, Wisconsin breeders raised healthy chicks with high survival. Brood size was split 50/50 between one- and two-chick broods. Beginning in 2010, however, chick survival and mass fell, and only 20 to 30% of broods contained two chicks. Furthermore, young adult survival plunged by 60% in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2015. Thus, poor breeding success and loss of young adults seem to be driving the population decline. There are simply not enough young loons being produced to replace adults that die.

Wait a minute. The breeding decline began around 2010, whereas the population did not begin to fall until after 2015. Are these results consistent? Indeed they are. Most loons do not settle on territories until they are five to ten years old. Therefore, several years must pass before poor breeding success is “felt” in the adult population. Hence, a statewide population decline beginning in about 2015 is what we would expect from a reproductive downturn 5-10 years earlier.

Hints of a Similar Pattern in Minnesota

We have only three years of detailed breeding data from the Minnesota Study Area. These data are too few to make robust comparisons with population trends from the MLMP. Still, we can report two preliminary patterns from the state. First, the adult return rate in Minnesota (80 to 83%) has consistently run 5% below that in Wisconsin.* Second, 31% of all fledged broods in our Minnesota Study Area from 2021 to 2023 contained two chicks. This number puts Minnesota in line with Wisconsin, where the paucity of two-chick broods reflects challenges faced by breeders since 2010. The 2022 MLMP report too cites reduced chick production in recent years as a potential cause for concern. At first glance, then, the loon population in Minnesota seems to be facing the same difficulty as its neighbor to the east.

Environmental Causes of the Decline

Thus, the loon population across the entire Upper Midwest seems to be in decline owing to reduced breeding success. This is vital information. But if our knowledge ended there, we would stand no chance of fixing the problem. To do so, we must identify the precise environmental factor or factors that impair loons’ ability to breed. In the past few years, of course, we have learned that decreased water clarity and increased black flies are two such factors in Wisconsin. That is a good start. However, it will improve our understanding — and strengthen any case we might wish to make for using local, state, and/or federal resources to mitigate the problems — if we can extend these findings from Wisconsin to Minnesota.

The Plan for 2024

2024 is going to be a pivotal year for the Loon Project. Why “pivotal”? Because we have built a conceptual and logistical platform in Wisconsin for understanding the entire Upper Midwest loon population. And we have painted a clear picture of a declining Wisconsin population and its causes. In 2024 we must pivot towards Minnesota.

Thanks to the hard work of our field crews, seed money from the National Loon Center, and the growing ranks of folks in Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere who support our work logistically and financially, we have spent three productive years in Minnesota. We have identified 115 territories in Crow Wing and Cass counties that constitute our Minnesota Study Area and marked adults in about 3/4 of these territories. Our task now is to place a large enough team in the field to collect high-quality breeding data from our new Minnesota study lakes.

We will use methods in Minnesota that have proved successful in Wisconsin since 1993. In the spring we will clear cobwebs from our canoes, head to our 115 study lakes, and confirm the return or non-return of each pair member. On subsequent weekly visits single team members will locate and identify each pair member and document their nesting status or number of chicks. Most critical to our effort will be recording causes of nest failure and chick loss, because, of course, poor breeding success is the root cause of the Upper Midwest population decline.

Our growing sample of survival data from adult return rates will allow us to build a population model for the Minnesota Study Area. In addition, accumulating return records will allow us to determine whether the curiously high annual mortality of Minnesota adults that we have measured by three separate means holds up over time. If so, we will try hard to identify the source of the mortality, which would be very costly to the population.

Following the field season, we will determine whether the low breeding success in our Minnesota Study Area persisted in 2024. Then we will turn our attention to environmental factors that are causing nest failure and/or loss of chicks in Minnesota. That is, we will follow up our increased field effort with a statistical search for likely causes — especially water clarity, black fly populations, and weather patterns — that might be driving a breeding decline. It will likely take several years of intense field work to get a clear picture of such causes.

Support for Our Low Tech Approach

As you have surmised, our future promises to be unglamorous and low tech. We will not use drones, satellite transmitters, amphibious vehicles, or hovercraft to collect data. Instead, trained observers will employ the field techniques that have gotten us where we are today. We will carry our canoes to boat landings, put paddles in the water, find loons, and collect as much data as grit and elbow grease allow.

Now I am asking for your help as we do this important work to save loons in the Upper Midwest. If you believe in our work and wish for it to continue, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support us. In keeping with our theme of simplicity, we run a lean operation. None of our funding goes into the pockets of senior researchers. This year we will use our funds to support: 1) field interns who visit study lakes by canoe and collect data (about $6,000 for each of four interns covers a monthly stipend and reimbursement for gas); 2) lodging for the interns and myself (about $10,000, if recent experience is a useful guide); 3) economy airfare for me to make two trips to and from the Upper Midwest and gasoline for the motorboat we use to cover breeding pairs on the Whitefish Chain ($1800); and 4) color bands for marking loons and costs to replace broken equipment and needed supplies ($4,000). So I estimate our need to be about $40,000 for the expanded 2024 field effort in Minnesota.

By the way, we currently have enough funding in place to support a modest field effort in Wisconsin. However, increased funds directed to Wisconsin would also strengthen our effort in this most valuable long-term study population. You may earmark your donation to go towards our Wisconsin work, if you so choose.

You may use this link to go to our “Donate” page. Thanks for any support you can give us. We promise to make every penny count! 

The Future

Our future prospects seem bright. In addition to cultivating a large number of supporters across the Upper Midwest, we are forming an Upper Midwest research team. Obtaining funding is always uncertain, but our new collaborators have a good track record of acquiring major regional funding. We will apply for such funding this year and, if we are fortunate, might receive it by late 2025.

If all goes well, lake dwellers in Crow Wing and Cass counties will soon get used to the same peculiar sight to which lake residents in Oneida and Lincoln counties have become accustomed: paddlers in solo canoes, wearing bleached PFDs and binoculars, scanning the lake’s surface ceaselessly for loons.

FOOTNOTES

* This pattern is enigmatic. I can think of no reason why Minnesota loons should die at a higher rate than Wisconsin loons. One hypothesis is that the pattern is the higher density of loons in the Minnesota Study Area than the Wisconsin Study Area results in greater competition for territories in Minnesota. If so, what appears to be a low adult survival rate might instead be a higher rate of eviction. From a conservation standpoint, we must hope that eviction explains the apparent difference. If Minnesota loons truly die at a substantially higher rate than Wisconsin loons, Minnesota birds would have to offset that mortality rate with considerably higher breeding success.

** The beautiful featured photo, as usual, is by Linda Grenzer. It shows a foot waggle by two-year-old male that tried to claim her lake as its territory this past summer. We are slightly worried that this youngest-ever settler is a sign of population decline in Wisconsin, because four-, five-, and six-year-old nonbreeders would normally outcompete it for this territorial opening.

on

I did my graduate work at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. My advisor and I spent tooth-chattering mornings from November to April sitting in blinds and watching 300+ color-marked white-throated sparrows compete for seeds at feeding stations. We learned a good deal from this work. We now understand how aggressive behavior affects the survival and local movements of this species.

Many lake residents and outdoorsy types in Wisconsin and Minnesota recognize white-throated sparrows from another time of year. These striking little birds sing distinctive, whistled songs in late May and June along forest edges in the Upper Midwest. Although they are more understated, the calls of white-throats typify northern boreal forests much as loons’ calls symbolize northern lakes.

White-throated sparrows live two very different lives in summer and winter. We witnessed part of the transition between these lives in North Carolina. During early May, the undisciplined hordes of sparrows we had grown accustomed to seeing broke up into smaller flocks. In mid May, they spurned the seeds we offered and fed instead on protein-rich buds they found in treetops. By late May, our sparrows had left for the north country.

The departure of our study animals left us with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it gave us a much-needed break from the daily grind of field work. On the other hand, it left a void and a puzzle. Where had our birds gone? Were they New England breeders that serenaded summer hikers in the White Mountains of New Hampshire with their plaintive calls? Or had they headed inland towards the Upper Great Lakes where they crooned to cottagers on lakes? Perhaps they had ventured to northern Ontario, Manitoba, or even the Northwest Territories. If so, they likely belted out their songs with no human around to enjoy them.

I spent many hours pondering summer destinations of our wintering sparrows. I felt — quite irrationally — that there must be some way to learn where they migrated to breed. Could some distinctive wisp of vegetation or a sticky residue from berry or insect from the breeding quarters become lodged in their feathers or stuck to the bill; survive the journey southwards; and still be detectable in North Carolina in October? Perhaps. But no researcher, to my knowledge, has ever determined the migratory origin of a small songbird by such a means. Eventually I gave up on my fanciful notion of learning where our sparrows spent the six months when they were not in our company.

Other scientists did not give up on the dream of linking breeding and wintering areas. Indeed, for a few decades now scientists have used stable isotope analysis to detect geographic movements of itinerant animals. Stable isotopes are different versions of a chemical element with different masses. For example, most hydrogen atoms (over 99.9%) occur as H-1, which has no neutron in the nucleus. But a few hydrogen atoms take the form of H-2, which possesses one neutron and weighs twice as much. Here is the key point: water droplets in rainfall in each geographic region contain a characteristic tiny percentage of H-2 (.02% in one place, .008% in another). And living things absorb water so that they too contain a ratio of H-2 to H-1 in their bodies that is distinctive to the region they inhabit.

Measurement of stable isotopes is especially useful to bird biologists because of feathers. Feathers are not living tissue. They are keratinized structures that grow from living tissue and, once formed, no longer receive a blood supply. So the stable isotope ratio within feathers does not track the current environment like that in skin, blood, or muscle. Instead, feathers are a time capsule that contains the stable isotope ratio at the time and place of their formation. When a bird grows new feathers in one place and migrates to another, its feathers retain the stable isotope signature of the molting location.

Loons grow fresh wing feathers on the wintering ground prior to migration. This means that wing feathers of breeding loons bear the isotopic signature of their winter quarters. Thus, a small wing feather we clip in July can tell us where a specific breeder spends its winters.

We have some understanding of loon migration and wintering patterns, thanks to the work of Kevin Kenow, Jim Paruk, and their co-workers. Furthermore, recoveries of banded loons have helped us sketch out the wintering range of our Wisconsin and Minnesota breeders (see map below). However, we cannot tell where any particular loon — like the territorial female on Roosevelt-Southwest — winters.

Sources and destinations of loons banded in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Light blue lines are paths of adults; dark blue lines indicate first-winter birds.

Why does it matter where a specific territorial loon spends the winter? Because we have burning questions about conservation of Wisconsin and Minnesota loons that require fine-scale understanding of migratory patterns. For example, does use of certain wintering areas lead to low survival for Upper Midwest breeders? Do poor years for adult returns in Wisconsin and Minnesota correspond to “die-offs” in specific wintering areas? Does the low annual return rate of adults in Minnesota (compared to Wisconsin) indicate unfavorable conditions in their more westerly winter range (see figure above)?

In fact, we have many more questions of this kind. To answer some, we will need ecological data from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast. At the moment, however, subtle information locked within the feathers of our study animals and transported by them from wintering to breeding grounds is giving us hope that we will soon have a better understanding of common loon survival throughout the year.

Thanks to Linda Grenzer, who took the cool photo of the male from Halfmoon Lake coming in for a landing some years ago.

on

Many of my colleagues fear ChatGPT. They fear that students will use this new online tool based on artificial intelligence to generate papers and answer questions on homework assignments that students are meant to tackle themselves. Their fear is legitimate. Why? Because if you read ChatGPT’s answers to a range of questions, you notice something rather quickly. ChatGPT generally produces plausible, thoughtful, coherent responses. Furthermore, ChatGPT writes well — at least compared to what I see from most of my undergraduate students. In short, ChatGPT creates headaches for instructors. It is forcing us to reconsider how we evaluate our students.

On the other hand, I was excited to learn what this new AI tool would produce when asked about loon biology. I asked ChatGPT: “Do loons mate for life?”. It responded:

While common loons often return to the same breeding territories and may reunite with the same mate from the previous year, these pair bonds are not necessarily permanent. After the breeding season, loons typically migrate to coastal or open water areas for the winter, and their social behavior can be more flexible during this time. When they return to their breeding territories in the following spring, they may or may not reunite with the same mate.

Now, this is not a terrible answer. ChatGPT is correct when it suggests that loons do not mate for life. But its mention of migration is off-topic. Its point regarding “social behavior” during winter is irrelevant. Its statement that loons “may or may not reunite with the same mate [in the spring]” is grossly misleading. And ChatGPT has entirely failed to mention the chief reason why loons do not mate for life: territorial eviction.

ChatGPT’s responses to loon-related questions are similar to its answers on other topics. The program searches the web for information from which to build its responses. But because these responses draw information from countless online sources, they include the good, the bad, and the ugly. In short, ChatGPT gives you a blur of “conventional wisdom” about any topic, not rigorous and precise scientific truth. Its answers are, for the most part, uncontroversial, vague, and riddled with caveats.

I turned my attention to loon conservation. When I asked, “Are any common loon populations in trouble?”, ChatGPT came back with:

As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, the status of loon populations, particularly the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in North America, varied by region and was a subject of concern in some areas. Common Loons were classified as a species of “Least Concern” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) due to their relatively stable population at the global level.

However, it’s important to note that local and regional populations can face significant challenges, including habitat loss, water pollution, lead poisoning from ingesting fishing tackle, disturbance from boating and recreational activities, and climate change impacts on their breeding and wintering grounds. These factors could affect specific loon populations and lead to localized declines.

ChatGPT is spot on in some respects. Loons are in no trouble globally. And the status of populations varies from one region to another. But the program uncritically lists many anthropogenic factors that might harm loon populations and provides no specific information. One might infer from ChatGPT’s statement that we must solve all of the problems listed in order to preserve loons. Or perhaps loon populations face many obstacles but none is severe enough to cause serious harm. In truth, we do not know which, if any, of the listed factors might endanger loons. Furthermore, ChatGPT has failed to mention two factors — exploding black fly populations and decreased water clarity — known to harm loon populations in the Upper Midwest. If this had been a class assignment, ChatGPT would have earned a “C-“.

ChatGPT’s take on factors threatening loons sounds eerily familiar to what we loon conservationists often say. (I include myself in this group.) That is, we often settle for a ChatGPT-caliber pronouncement about loon conservation. We say or imply that if we: 1) enact a lead ban, 2) reduce human settlement on northern lakes, 3) eliminate water pollution, 4) keep boaters away from adults and chicks, and 5) halt climate change, then we can save loons. These goals, of course, range from difficult to impossible to achieve.

A ChatGPT-like approach will not save loons. We simply cannot eliminate all threats. In fact, many factors that loon conservationists perceive as threats pose little or no hazard. The best example is human recreation. While lead sinkers are a danger to loon populations because of the many breeding adults they kill each year, loons are well-equipped to handle boaters. Loons tremolo, wail, or yodel when boats are too close to them or their chicks. They penguin dance, charge, and dive noisily at boats that creep close to their nests. Humans usually interpret these warnings correctly and back away in short order. Moreover, the low rates of mortality and nest abandonment attributable to boating activity indicate that loons tolerate human interactions well.**

How do we distinguish between relatively benign environmental factors, like boating, and those that truly endanger loon populations, like black flies, lead sinkers, and water clarity? Science. Only science will save loons. If the Minnesota loon population is declining and 50% of loon deaths result from lead poisoning, the folks in Saint Paul will take notice. If Wisconsin loons fledge 40% fewer offspring nowadays than in 1995 because of lower water clarity, that will make headlines in Milwaukee. And if the fledging rate across the Upper Midwest is 30% lower owing to black fly-induced nest abandonments, that might turn apathy concerning climate change into action.***

So if you are an unprincipled student being taught by an inattentive instructor, ChatGPT might earn you a “B” on your history paper. And if you cannot get the wording right in a letter to a client or colleague, ChatGPT might provide suggestions. But we loon conservationists should resist the uncritical, shotgun approach that ChatGPT takes to addressing questions. If we are going to preserve loon populations that we treasure, we must first collect data. And then, in our communications with the public, politicians, and the media, we must highlight the specific environmental hazards that science has shown to be dangerous to loons.

* The featured photo was taken a week ago by Linda Grenzer of an adult male from Lake Winter, Wisconsin that swallowed a lead sinker. Though the sinker was surgically removed by Raptor Education Group in Antigo, the male died two days later from the lead it had already absorbed.

** I might be biased by my work in Wisconsin and Minnesota in my conclusion about loons coping with boating activity. It is conceivable that boats do cause enough nesting failure and/or chick mortality in some regions to threaten loon populations. We do not have data to show such a pattern, however. If you know of such data, please let me know.

*** I made up these three numbers. We are still collecting data on loon mortality caused by lead sinkers. Only recently have we learned about the threats of black flies and loss of water clarity. We and our partners are recording many lead-poisoned loons these days. We will publish an estimate of lead’s impact within five years. Robust estimates of the impacts of black flies and water clarity on loon populations in Wisconsin (and possibly Minnesota) should be available by sometime in 2025.

on

Perched on the bow of a small motorboat in the middle of the night, I sweep a spotlight back and forth across the lake’s surface. My goal is simple. Find any small item resting on the dark water that catches the light. “Buoy”, Claudia proclaims in my ear as I freeze the spotlight on one such object that, at first blush, appears to be a loon. “No”, she barks a moment later, when I find a floating clump of vegetation. But shortly afterwards, the light falls upon something small, fuzzy, and brownish that becomes more and more loonlike as we approach it. I hand the spotlight backwards over my head to her, scooch as far forward as possible on my knees, and glance at the net to confirm it is untangled. Richard slows the boat and turns towards the loon family. “Adult!”, I whisper to Claudia — needlessly, because we had already agreed that we would first attempt to catch the parents. She trains the light on the larger of two adults whose physical features become dimly visible as we pull within fifty meters. On this occasion, luck is on our side; the male and female become alert as we draw near, but neither dives. We net the male without difficulty and, shortly afterwards, the female. The chick dives once after we fix him in the light. Seconds later, attracted by my loon calls, he wheels, swims towards the boat, and dives smoothly into the net that I place in his path. We quickly text Terri so that she can prepare the bands and datasheets on shore. Twenty two minutes later we have marked and weighed all three loons, transported them back to the capture site, and released them. Then it is on to the next lake.

One’s world narrows during loon capture. In the moment, all that matters is whether we netted this or that adult or chick we wished to band. Now that the sleep deprivation and tunnel vision of the capture period has subsided — and our nips and scrapes from loon bills have mostly healed — we can look back at our achievements over the season as a whole.

Between West Fox Lake in Minnesota, where our efforts began, and Oneida Lake in Wisconsin, where we wrapped up our season, we captured and banded 134 loons this year. Terri and Richard saved us in Minnesota with their expert boat-handling and organizational skills. Emily and Danny from the Wisconsin team were essential to our capture there. A huge thank you to all team members, who made 2023 a great year.

The research landscape differs starkly between the two study areas. In Minnesota, breeding pairs on Kego, Mitchell-East, Mitchell-West, Goodrich-Southeast, O’Brien, Clamshell, Kimble-West, Margaret, Big Trout-Far West — and dozens of other territories — got bands for the first time. The return or non-return of these adults in future years will allow us to refine our estimate of adult survival in the region and build the first-ever quantitative population model for the state. Thanks to our growing list of Minnesota partners and friends, who greased the skids for our work there with donations of funds, lodging, field work, lake access, advice, information about loons on their lakes — and moral support!

Having marked almost all adults in the Wisconsin Study Area decades ago, we now focus on marking chicks. Chick mass, we now know, provides a convenient assay of water clarity during the chick-rearing period. While we have already shown that increased black fly populations and falling water clarity have dealt the Wisconsin loon population a devastating one-two punch, there is more work to be done in the state. If we can pinpoint the exact environmental factor that reduces water clarity — our current research target — we might learn how to stem the population decline.

All of our research findings require loon capture. Although it is not foremost in my mind at those moments when I am kneeling in the bow of a small motorboat and inspecting fuzzy brown spots on the water, our work — our ability to learn about loon populations and what ails them — depends critically upon catching loons, weighing loons, and knowing who they are.

Thanks to Barbara Krimmer of South Two Lake in Wisconsin, who took this nice photo of the female (left), male (right) and two big chicks there.

on

The two-year olds have done it again. At an age when most loons are loafing, feeding, staying out of trouble, and just trying to survive, a second two-year-old has shown territorial pretensions. This time, the loon is a female. This time, the territory is in our Minnesota Study Area.

The discovery occurred three days ago on Pig Lake. Although I always smile at its undignified name, I was a bit sad to visit Pig, because neither pair member from 2022 had returned this spring. This fact reminded me of the generally poor return rate in Crow Wing County and my growing concern for loons in Minnesota. So as I gazed through binoculars at the whitecaps on Pig, I braced myself for what more bad news the lake might have to offer.

But among the four loon heads bobbing about in the surf, I was thrilled to spot a banded loon. This bird was one of a pair that dived in close synchrony off of Black Pine Resort. “One of the missing pair members is back!”, I whispered to myself, hopefully. Further observation dispelled that notion. The loon’s right leg showed two colored leg bands. Since all loons banded as adults get a metal band on the right leg, two plastic bands on the right leg meant that I was not watching one of the missing pair members, but instead observing an “ABJ” (adult banded as juvenile). That is, we had banded this loon as a chick.

Two possibilities leapt to mind. This bird might have been a one-in-a-million, 200-mile disperser of undetermined age from the Wisconsin Study Area, where we have been banding adult loons and chicks since time immemorial. Almost equally unlikely, the ABJ might have been one of our first crop of Minnesota chicks banded in 2021. The plot thickened as I compared the size of the ABJ and its mate. The banded bird was clearly smaller. I was looking at a rare female ABJ!*

My efforts to nail the ABJ’s color bands from my solo canoe were not immediately rewarded. I loosely followed the foraging pair, bobbing and spinning about comically amidst the churning waves and boat wakes. Eventually a moment came — forty minutes into my chaotic paddle — when the ABJ and I were carried to the crests of adjacent waves and the bird raised its legs clear of the water. I confirmed that the bird was blue over auric red on the right and red over silver on the left. “B/Ar,R/S”, my notes revealed, was marked as a chick on Ossawinnamakee – Muskie Bay territory on 18 July 2021. So this was indeed a two-year-old female hatched a short distance from Pig.

Like the two-year-old male who is trying to settle on his natal lake in Wisconsin (pictured above in Linda Grenzer’s photo), B/Ar,R/S is special in two ways. She is not only the first chick we banded in Minnesota and have now reobserved as an adult. She is also less than half the age of the previous youngest female ever observed to settle (even for a day) on a territory. (That female was a Wisconsin five-year-old.) Since females settle at older ages than males, her pairing up is even more surprising than settlement of the two-year-old male in Wisconsin in the photo.

What are we to make of this astonishingly early territorial behavior by separate individuals in Wisconsin and Minnesota this year? Nothing at the moment, I think. Two rare events do not constitute a pattern. But those who follow the blog closely might recall that a decline in the population of floaters — mostly young adults not yet settled on territories — is one of the hallmarks of the current downward turn in the Wisconsin population. If we continue to see two- and three-year olds compete for territories in ways they did not 15 years ago, we will have to regard it as another indication of a limited pool of nonbreeders in Minnesota and Wisconsin** — and, hence, further evidence of a broad decline in the Upper Midwest loon population.

*most loons banded as chicks return at three or four years of age. Among those few that return at age two, very few are female. Indeed, about 3/4 of all ABJs we see are males, because males do not disperse far from their natal lakes to breed.

**The logic is simple here. If there are few young adult floaters (usually 4-, 5- and 6-year olds) in a population competing for territories, then even very young floaters (2- and 3-year olds) might be able to acquire one, despite their generally lower competitive ability and aggressiveness.

on

On the Loon Project, we are all out to band loons in Minnesota. This effort borders on obsession. Since adult loons must produce chicks to be easily catchable, our marking initiative depends upon finding pairs with chicks. “Have you seen any loon nests on your lake?” is a refrain Eric Andrews and I uttered to many residents of lakes in Crow Wing and Cass Counties back in May and June. “Have you seen any chicks?”, I have begun to ask in recent days, now that I am on my second tour through the Minnesota Study Area. This question is on my lips so often that I now smile inwardly each time I ask it. I hope that I do not sound desperate.

People have been happy to answer our loon-related questions. Driven by love of the state bird, scores of Minnesotans have shared their observations of loons, nests, and chicks, given us permission to launch canoes from their property, and even permitted us to post their photos of loons to spruce up our blog and Instagram posts. (Sheila Farrell Johnston’s cool photo, above, of a territorial battle on Upper Gull Lake this spring is a case in point.) Minnesotans, it seems, are as concerned about loons as we are and wish to help us enhance the current low-resolution picture of the state loon population with a robust, scientific analysis. The outpouring of support we have received this summer has ended any lingering uncertainty we had about continuing our research in the region. *

A growing demographic disparity lends urgency to our efforts in Minnesota. You see, accumulation of data from the Minnesota Study Population — and comparison with corresponding data from Wisconsin — has revealed that loons are returning to their territories at a lower rate in Minnesota than in Wisconsin. That’s right. In Wisconsin, where we already know the population is in some trouble, adult loons are returning to their territories at a higher rate than in Minnesota.

The numbers speak for themselves. In 2023, 63 of 74 Wisconsin territorial females (85%) returned to their 2022 territories, while 69 of 79 Wisconsin males came back (87%). Those numbers are typical for Wisconsin and for New England loon populations as well. In contrast, only 81% of Minnesota females (34 of 42) and 82% of Minnesota males (37 of 45) returned in May 2023 to the territories they owned in 2022. Now, these are not massive samples. So you might be excused for dismissing these numbers as sampling error from which no conclusion can be drawn. But this is the third independent analysis that has shown a higher rate of return in Wisconsin. We saw the same story in the data from last year and from Kevin Kenow’s marked adults from 2015-2017. So the time for hemming and hawing is over. We can no longer escape the fact that loons in Crow Wing County are returning to their territories less often than loons in Oneida County, Wisconsin.

Before you hurl yourself off of your dock, let me add some perspective. The lower return rate in Minnesota does not necessarily indicate lower survival there. Why not? Because a loon’s ability to return to its previous territory depends not only upon its being alive, but also upon its ability to defend its territory from challengers. Minnesota loons might be surviving just as well as — or even better than — Wisconsin loons. If so, however, they are being evicted from their territories at an astonishingly high rate.

Paradoxically, a high rate of eviction in Minnesota, if it is occurring, could be good news. A high eviction rate might indicate that Crow Wing County is overflowing with young 4-, 5-, and 6-year old adults looking to challenge owners for territories. If so, frequent eviction reflects high breeding success of loons in the County (4 to 6 years ago), because it is Crow Wing County loon pairs (for the most part) that have placed all of these young whippersnappers into circulation.

Ok, I admit it. I am putting lipstick on a pig. I do not truly believe that our Minnesota loons are kicking each other off of territories often enough to account for the low return rate we have found there. I do not know how to account for the pattern. But I am yet not unduly concerned about our Minnesota Study Population. Adult survival, even if lower in Minnesota, is only one piece of the puzzle. Still, the news is pushing me to be even more inquisitive of Minnesota lake residents. Someone listening closely late this afternoon might have heard my favorite question echo across the gently scalloped surface of Duck Lake: “Have you seen any loon chicks this year?”

*Mind you, we are still enthusiastically following our long-term study population in northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin loons continue to yield exciting insights about age-related behavior patterns and impacts of water clarity on the health and survival of loon chicks.

on

History is afoot on Muskellunge Lake. A two-year-old male is making a play for a high-quality territory….which is pretty shocking. 

Let me put this into perspective. Only about a quarter of all two-year-old loons even bother to return to the nesting grounds. The vast majority of all loons of this young age from eastern and midwestern breeding populations are cooling their heels in the Atlantic right now. Some are off of the Carolinas; some New Brunswick. The bulk of all two-year-olds play the long game: they retain the drab grey-brown winter plumage throughout their first two years, stay healthy on a saltwater diet, and postpone any thought of breeding until they acquire sufficient body mass to compete for a territory in their fourth or fifth year.

We have never observed a two-year-old adult male or female settle on a territory. Indeed, we have only once observed a loon as young as three claim a territory — and that was very late in the season and in a vacant space without competitors. (His mate, sad to say, was his mother.)

As territorial intruders, two- and three-year-old adults are nervous Nellies. They sit low in the water while circling with territorial pairs and are deathly afraid of underwater attack. They peer (look under water) and panic dive obsessively. When anxiety overwhelms them, they freak out and flee across the water tremoloing. In short, two- and three-year-olds do not appear emotionally equipped for territory ownership.

But “Junior”– as Linda calls the two-year-old that has settled on Muskellunge — threw out the book on reproductive maturation. When the 12-year-old male that took over on Muskellunge this year became injured in early June after a failed nesting attempt, Junior took possession of the lake and began defending it vociferously with territorial yodels (as you can see in Linda’s photo, above).

For a time, it seemed that Junior would ease into lake ownership without a battle. Yet news that Muskellunge Lake was up for grabs spread fast in the neighborhood, and the last two weeks have seen multiple local males vie for control. One of these males, from nearby Deer Lake, has tried to claim Muskellunge before and is renewing his bid. A second male, this a ten-year-old reared on neighboring Clear Lake, seemed settled on Harrison Flowage last year but is apparently looking to upgrade. 

Junior’s age is not all that makes his story unusual. He is also the only young adult (out of 211 observed so far) that we have ever observed to compete for ownership of his own natal territory. In this he is fortunate; the current breeding female on the lake, who will probably pair with the victorious male, is not Junior’s mother, but instead a female that took possession of Muskellunge last year.

According to Linda’s reports, Muskellunge remains in an uproar. One day Junior is in control and paired with the resident female (or the Bridge Lake female, whose mate did not return this spring). The next day the Deer male has taken ownership and patrols the lake, searching for Junior, who evades him. 

Linda and I are trying to celebrate the oddity of a two-year-old territory owner and not overthink it. But it is difficult to sit back and pretend to be neutral. After all, Junior got his name because he is the son of Clune, the beloved male who settled on Muskellunge in 2009, cranked out 14 chicks during 14 years of territory ownership, and never uttered a discouraging word for canoe nor kayak.

And it is hard not to wonder how a loon as young as Junior even got a shot at such a good territory. Is his territorial gambit an anomaly — a one-time peculiarity that you are bound to observe once if you study a loon population for 31 years? Or must we interpret his premature, longshot bid for territory ownership as yet another indication of the depleted ranks of young nonterritorial loons that epitomize population decline in the region?